A 16-year-old high school student says she is facing online threats after calling into question Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann's knowledge of the Constitution.

What started as a harmless -- if cheeky -- way of pointing out Bachmann's historical mistakes has turned darker for New Jersey high school sophomore Amy Meyers, the Courier Post Online reports.

Last month, Meyers posted an open letter online challenging Bachmann to a constitutional debate.

"I have found quite a few of your statements regarding the Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted," Myers wrote. "As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere."

Several media outlets reported on Myers' challenge. As a result, she said, people have threatened violence against her and threatened to publish her address online, the Courier Post reports. Myers' high school has also reprotedly received inquiries regarding Myers' letter.

"A lot of them are calling me a whore," Myers said of the online remarks against her. Added her father Wayne Myers: "I personally did not think there would be a reaction like actual stalking and the vitriol that's coming out."

Myers has also seen a good deal of positive feedback online. Bachmann's office has said it would not respond to the debate challenge.

As leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, Bachmann has expressed an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, even organizing classes on the Constitution for members of Congress. She's used her platform as a Tea Party leader to build a national profile and may soon enter the race

Its gotta suck for Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. All she wants to do is go around the country trumping up support for a presidential run by making a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions disconnected from reality.

Exhibit A:

we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States men like John Quincy Adams... would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.

Quite often, she gets away with saying stuff like this. But lately some meddling kids have been calling her out, asking her to back up her assertions with actual evidence.

Last month, a New Jersey high school student challenged Bachmann to a debate about the US Constitution. Ann Myers said the congresswoman frequently distorts facts about the document and the Founding Fathers. In response, commenters on tea party web sites started making threats of violence against the student for having the audacity to question Bachmann.

The 16-year-old Myers says that some commenters have called her “a whore.”

Bachmann has not responded to the challenge, nor has she issued a statement condemning the threats.

This week, 17-year-old Baton Rouge high school student Zack Kopplin called on Bachmann to back up her statement from 2006 in which she said lots of Nobel Prize winners support intelligent design.

Exhibit B: “There is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design.”

Kopplin is leading a charge to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act, an anti-evolution law that would sneak the teaching of creationism into science class. I’ve analyzed the purpose of the law here.

What’s really cool about Kopplins campaign is that he has lined up support for the repeal from 43 Nobel Laureates.

So Kopplin, in an open letter on his web site Wednesday, basically said, “I’ve shown mine, now you, Congresswoman Bachmann, show me yours.”

He writes:

Does Congresswoman Bachmann really think the public will fall for her sleight of hand and believe she has Nobel Laureate scientists who support these unscientific theories?

Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your “hundreds” of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists.

Major science organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which represents over 10 million scientists, have publicly endorsed the repeal.

Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?

Kopplin is testifying before Louisiana lawmakers today urging them to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act.

****"As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere." ****

Translation: since she's not yipee and yahoo for abortion she's anti-woman.

we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States men like John Quincy Adams... would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.

Um...unless I learned wrong, JQA was strongly opposed to slavery...I am not sure what is incorrect about her statement.

Michelle said “forefathers” not “Founding Fathers” in her statement about the end of slavery.BIG difference but CBS can't edit a Leftist lie—ain't in them. The 105 “hidden” billion WAS hidden along with thousands of other things in a massive bill that had to be passed before we could see what's in it. An unread bill being voted on has near unlimited “hidden” details. Now does the Little MSM controlled Marxist bobby-soxer have even ONE documented incident where Rep Bachman was wrong about the US Constitution? No! the Bieber bait bimbette is as brain dead and pliant as all liberal tools.

12
posted on 05/28/2011 8:40:15 PM PDT
by Happy Rain
("I speak LOUD and I carry an even BIGGER stick! And I use it too-WHACK!!!"-candidate Yosemite Sam.)

Who is the biggest fool, the 16 year old. Are the ones that think this is a news story. Reporter needs to find something to write about. I remember the young man on TV, just graduated from college, that thought the leaning tower of Pisa, was in pizza land.

A 16-year-old from New Jersey posts an inane challenge to a congresswoman from another state, and "several" media outlets find it NEWSWORTHY? I challenge my own congresscritters all the time, and nobody ever thinks that's newsworthy.

Exactly. If it was done it’s wrong and any idiot stupid enough to resort to RAT name-calling tactics deserved to be outed. So, as when the moonbats threatened Wisconsin state legislators, let’s have the IP addresses and go get them. No conservative wants this kind of jerk on our side.

On the other hand, we’ve been accused of saying things in the past - like the “n-word” at the Tea Party rally...? Without proof, who knows what was said?

And no, I’m not saying it’s OK to call her a whore just because every liberal seems to get away calling Republicans vile things like that.

RE: I challenge my own congresscritters all the time, and nobody ever thinks that’s newsworthy.

Well, for one, you’re not a teenager. Secondly, there’s no interest on the part of the mainstream media to make a Democrat look ignorant. Thirdly, the mainstream media is just itching to prove that a Tea Party candidate ( a so called conservative Goliath ) can be slain by a liberal “David”. And finally, if they can do that, they can then by implication, tar and feather the entire Tea Party movement as composed of ignoramuses who support an ignoramus as a leader.

the journolist knows exactly what she is doing. this is a cleverly disguised form of the alinsky ridicule attack. michele is correct. she comes out fine as long as she ignores it. the statists now need a response, let them debate themselves.

I'm wrong,she said “founders” and traced their efforts to end slavery to JQA. Had to listen to the speech again—pretty good,I knew what she was talking about even with the little flub—she should have said forefathers.

28
posted on 05/28/2011 9:00:32 PM PDT
by Happy Rain
("I speak LOUD and I carry an even BIGGER stick! And I use it too-WHACK!!!"-candidate Yosemite Sam.)

This kid is a dope and a tool but the fact is Bachmann has been a disappointment as a candidate so far. As for the intelligent design/science thing, I think Dinesh D’Sousa listed scientists who believe in God in What’s So Great About Christianity. Whether they won Nobels or not, I don’t remember.

I’m pretty sure that nowadays belief in God disqualifies a person from winning a Nobel (or an Oscar too!). It’s only where honesty matters that belief in God really rates.

Either way, I don’t think Michele Bachmann (who I really like) is ready for prime time.

First of all, I would point out that I have no opinion on Bachmann at this point.Second, I wouldn't call this kid a whore...yet - until I find out what the pimps at See-BS or DNC are paying her.But she's most definitely a whiny brat.

Listen, little girl: you had the temerity to make a public spectacle of yourself, to call out this congresswoman and essentially say she's ignorant & deceitful. Then, when Michelle's friends have the temerity to suggest that they believe your intentions are less than honorable, and that you've been put up to it by a pimping party and pimping network, you want to whine to national media - See-BS News, in particular - and complain, "Ahm juss a widdoo goil and all vees angwy people awe pickin' on me!"

By the way, regarding the statement that (gasp!) "There is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact," I certainly hope so - for any scientist worth their salt.

Speaking as a scientist, and one who personally has little problem with evolution and creationism, any real scientist has to acknowledge that evolution is a THEORY. Perhaps a very good & sound one, depending on your argument, but a THEORY just the same, and NOT a "fact".

Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate  it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.”

Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, “Origins and Destiny”. Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):

“I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange’s refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!” (http://www.ccel.us/gange.toc.html#Ab)

Wigner also noted in his widely quoted paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, that scientists often take for granted the remarkable—even miraculous—effectiveness of mathematics in describing the real world:

“The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the mysterious . . . . There is no rational explanation for it . . . . The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” - Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13 (1960): 1-14.

Interesting comments for an acclaimed “modern” genius with a Nobel Prize in physics. Such comments seem to mirror Einstein’s well-known observation:

“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way . . . . [T]he kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” Albert Einstein, Letters to Solovine (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), 131.
Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program. In his address he discussed the increasing lifespan of humans as a result of cures and treatments for various infections and diseases. He urged his listeners to seriously consider their role as “higher species” on this planet. He also mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creation, Darwin versus the Biblical Genesis account, noting that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe that “Genesis was right, and there was a creation, and that the Creator is still involved”. (1)

After reading the book “Origins of Life” by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (2), among other books by Rana, Richard Smalley make the following endorsement: “ Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred.” (3)

Toward the last days of his life, in an interview with William Dembski, Smalley predicted that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution, in its conventional materialistic sense, would be dead within ten. Although I am personally just a bit skeptical as to the time frame, it will be interesting to see if his predictions are eventually borne out. (4)

Understood, but again, I seem to recall a story here about 4-6 months ago about some kid challenging Bachman after her Lexington/Concord snafu, complaining that he/she was being threatened and such. Maybe I’m just old.

As a young boy in a parochial I was initiated to the debating culture about the third grade. I recall a debate before before a ladies aid group about water and fire being most important. The boys team won with water, one argument being water puts out fire. The girls were not up to making any arguments about fire turning water into steam for engines. However. my story is how I got caught up in my new ability to debate to sometimes be obnoxious. The saving part of my life was when I tried my debating skills on my mother. My mother won practically all the debates even if she had to use a swatter to my rear.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.